PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1173
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 974 & Crl. A. No. 609 of 2024,
heard on 25.7.2024.
Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (XI of 2005)--
----Ss. 3 & 4--Criminal Procedure Code, (V of 1898), S. 248--Conviction--Withdrawal of complaint--Non compoundable offence--Compromise--All five on their conviction under section 3 of the Act, ibid, were sentenced to three years simple imprisonment with fine--Complainant present alongwith his counsel expressed the desire to withdraw the main complaint, root cause of above judgment of conviction and sentence, by alleging that the possession of the disputed land has been restored to him, therefore, he has effected compromise with the accused/ appellants and wants to withdraw his complaint u/S. 248 of Cr.P.C--If the offences are non-compoundable then complainant can withdraw his complaint on any consideration--Parties have entered into compromise, he does not want to pursue the case anymore and opts to withdraw the complaint and in this respect--Withdrawal of complaint is allowed in the circumstances and as a result whereof, appellants are acquitted of the charge--Appeal allowed. [P. 1174] A, B, C & D
PLD 2022 Lahore 427 ref.
Khawaja Qaisar Butt, Advocate for Appellant.
Malik Mudassar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Ms. Farrah Sharif Khosa, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 25.07.2024.
Judgment
Hafeez Ullah and four others (accused/appellants) were fixed with the allegation of having illegally dispossessed the complainant from land measuring 3-kanal in Khata No. 229 situated at Mouza Mail Manjath, Tehsil Alipur, therefore, pursuant to a private complaint filed by Mureed Hussain complainant under (sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, on conclusion of trial ultimately vide judgment dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Alipur, all five on their conviction under section 3 of the Act, ibid, were sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- each, in case of default to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment, in addition payment of compensation of
Rs. 100,000/- each under section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the complainant. Further the SHO concerned was directed to hand over the possession of the alleged property to the complainant after taking over the same from accused/convicts within fifteen days, hence, the instant appeal.
2. Today, through Crl. Misc. No. 974/2024 the complainant present along with his learned counsel expressed the desire to withdraw the main complaint, root cause of above judgment of conviction and sentence, by alleging that the possession of the disputed land has been restored to him, therefore, he has effected compromise with the accused/appellants and wants to withdraw his complaint under section 248 of Cr.P.C. An affidavit of the complainant to that effect (MARK-A) has been placed on the record.
3. Heard.
4. This Court already has resolved the controversy that if the offences are non-compoundable then complainant can withdraw his complaint on any consideration, Reliance is placed on case reported as “Malik Muhammad Ejaz Channar versus The State, etc” (PLD 2022 Lahore 427).
5. As here in the instant case the parties have entered into compromise therefore, the complainant present before the Court states that he does not want to pursue the case anymore and opts to withdraw the complaint and in this respect, he has also submitted an affidavit, therefore, withdrawal of complaint is allowed in the circumstance and as a result whereof, appellants are acquitted of the charge. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Record of trial Court be returned immediately.
(M.A.B.) Appeal allowed
0 Comments